2.1 When a Finding as to Rights or Legitimate Interest is Appropriate
A Respondent only needs to show that he has “a” legitimate right or interest. A Respondent does not need to show that his rights or legitimate interests are better (however measured) than those of Complainant.
Panels may be tempted to skip over determining whether a Respondent has rights and a legitimate interest. This is often done for reasons of judicial economy, as strictly speaking a case can be dismissed on one prong of the three-part test and therefore the decision need not address any additional, extraneous grounds. Nevertheless, Panelists should generally make an affirmative finding of rights and legitimate interest if the facts so warrant, due to the implicit obligations of Rule 4(c).
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy expressly entitles a Respondent to “prove” its rights and legitimate interests and implicitly directs a Panel to make such a finding if so proven:
“How to Demonstrate Your Rights to and Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name in Responding to a Complaint. When you receive a complaint, you should refer to Paragraph 5 of the Rules of Procedure in determining how your response should be prepared. Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):…”
A Respondent who has had its bona fides challenged and been falsely accused of what essentially amounts to a type of fraud, may deserve some vindication and confirmation of their rights and interests as the Policy provides for.
Additional Information
Relevant Decisions
Textron Innovations Inc. v. Kevin Carson / King Air Academy, Forum FA2503002147185 <kingairacademy. com>, 3-Member, Denied
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that, during the 12 years before any notice to Respondent of this dispute, Respondent has used the <kingairacademy.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of training services for KING AIR aircraft and that Respondent (as a business organization) has been commonly known by the domain name. This reality is not undercut by Complainant’s argument that the King Air Gatherings are separate from Respondent’s primary business activities because, even accepting that the parties are in competition, Complainant has, since at least 2017, clearly acknowledged and acquiesced in Respondent being commonly known by the domain name and business name by collaborating with it for these Gatherings.
Fareportal, Inc. v. Alejandro Atanes, Takeoff Flights LLC, WIPO D2025-0584 <fareporto. com>, Denied
The phrase “bona fide” in Policy 4(c)(i) means “good faith,” but its function is primarily to distinguish “real” businesses from fictitious businesses created by cybersquatters to hide their true intent. Ironically, the BBB complaints show that Respondent is in fact engaged in a real business complete with some customers who are dissatisfied. In this sense, the BBB complaints demonstrate that Respondent’s business is not a pretext to veil cybersquatting.
RENU MEDISPA, L.L.C. v. Angela Sattler / Aesthetics, Forum FA2503002143814 <renewcda. com>, 3-member, Denied, RDNH
For its part, Respondent has submitted a number of documents which support its claim of having actually operated a medical spa for seven years under the name Renew Aesthetics & IV Hydration Bar. These include declarations from its owners/operators, the Chief Operations Officer of Respondent’s external marketing and media strategy firm, and even the owner of a nearby medical spa business, all of which were filed in connection with the Idaho Litigation. Respondent also has submitted a declaration from a vendor that rebuts Complainant’s alleged evidence of actual confusion. Considering all the evidence submitted, the Panel finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Complainant has failed to establish that Respondent’s use of its name and domain name is causing actionable confusion (a finding that is consistent with the court’s finding in the Idaho Litigation).
Rexel Developpement SAS v. Akin Odedina, Afric Weddings, WIPO D2025-0596 <rexelcyber. com>, Denied
The Panel finds that, before notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of services, in accord with the example of legitimate interests given in the Policy, paragraph 4(c)(i)…
The website operator is listed with contact details, and it is a company registered in the United Kingdom with Companies House. The Complainant does not furnish evidence that the named client references are fraudulent. Social media posts, events announcements, and the Declaration of company director Eniola Odedina support the statements in the Response concerning the involvement of the Respondent Mr. Odedina with the company and the website.
SCIPIO BIOSCIENCE v. Christian SCIPIO, CAC-UDRP-106285 (2024), <scipio.email>, Denied
The Respondent has served a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding and provided documentary evidence of his name being ‘Christian Scipio’ since 2020, by virtue of marriage. The coincidence of facts and circumstances in the present case is somewhat perplexing to the Panel: an individual who works in the biotech industry sector in the vicinities (a neighbouring country) acquires, by marriage in 2020, a (rare!) family name which is identical to the name of an unrelated enterprise (incorporated in 2017) which however operates in the same industry sector and owns trade mark rights in such name since 2022. Despite the present case involving a great deal of head-scratching, the Panel cannot fail to note that the Respondent effectively has a right in the name ‘Scipio’ as his surname by virtue of marriage. As unfortunately a reality to the Complainant as it may be, ‘Scipio’ is Respondent’s surname after all. This suffices for the Panel to find in favour of the Respondent under this UDRP Policy ground, namely that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Tox Pressotechnik GmbH & Co. KG v. TFourth LLC, WIPO D2022-3270, <tox.com>, 3-member, Denied, RDNH
The Panel finds that the Respondent has established a legitimate interest in investing in a short domain name, one that also corresponds to a common prefix and suffix and abbreviation found in English dictionaries and used in the medical field.
Hallmark Licensing, LLC and Hallmark Cards, Incorporated v. Privacy Administrator / Anonymize, Inc., Forum FA2104001941032, <mahogany.com>, 3-member, Denied
The Panel finds that the Respondent has rights and a legitimate interest in the Domain Name because it corresponds to a well-known descriptive dictionary word. “Mahogany” is a common and well-known dictionary word used by numerous people and companies.
Sage Global Services Limited v. Narendra Ghimire, Deep Vision Architects, WIPO DAI2023-0010, 3-member, Denied with two concurring opinions
From the concurring opinion of Tony Willoughby:
On that basis the Respondent, in my view, acquired at the very least a legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name when he purchased it from Sage Health. To find otherwise necessarily involves the Panel branding the Respondent, who has declared under penalty of perjury that he was unaware of the Complainant until he received the Complaint, a liar.